Okay first off I want to state that I know about the Improvised Weapons rule to be used for anything that doesn't have a attack stat already but I see rods and poles should have some type of attack of Bludgeoning naturally. The pole is 10ft why wouldn't the monk hit something with it?? As for wands if its pointed on one end it can technically Pierce something or if its rounded it would be Bludgeoning instead and there could be a repercussion for using a wand in this way but its just incase of someone or something getting to close and don't have time to pull a like a dagger. Like how I see it is these items could be weapons naturally in any situation, can anyone give me any reason they aren't this way in the RAW (Rules As Written)?
Because those things are equipment and not weapons. They are made to be things that are use for utility stuff (or as a Focus) and thus are usually not sturdy enough to be used as a weapon. Try a Quarterstaff instead of a Pole (or a Staff) and a Mace instead of a Rod and, well anything you like, instead of a Wand. If you absolutely need to use one as a weapon then it becomes an improvised weapon.
Why should they have their own weapon/attack and damage properties? For the rod and pole, if they're sturdy enough to be used as weapons, you can use the club and staff stats respectively, but I doubt they would be. I don't see a wand being something you could reasonably use as a weapon in any circumstance.
Poles - This is a long length of wood or sometimes metal that is a utility item. If it's light enough that you could wield it as a weapon, it's not going to be strong enough to use as one, and if it's strong enough to use as a weapon, it's not going to be light enough to wield as one. But if you posses a pole that's an exception to this, use the staff stats
Rods - These are magical implements crafted from rare woods, esoteric crystals, or complicated alloys. They're unlikely to be something strong enough to bonk someone over the head with, certainly not more than once. But again, if you are in possession of an unusually resilient rod, use the club stats.
Wands - Again, these are magic implements like rods, but much smaller and more delicate. They're not going to have enough heft for bludgeoning, and they're generally not pointy enough for stabbing. They're tools of the arcane, not something you stick someone with.
Like how I see it is these items could be weapons naturally in any situation, can anyone give me any reason they aren't this way in the RAW (Rules As Written)?
The improvised weapon rules, as the name would suggest, are for when you are improvising a weapon. So RAW yes these items could be used as a weapon in "any situation". However, you're going to be hard pressed to make a compelling argument that a wand would be more effective than a dagger, a rod more so than a club, or a pole more effective than a staff.
10' long. Why would a character carry that anywhere on an adventure? Have you ever carried 10' of anything by yourself? It is very hard to maneuver when you are inside of anything (forest, dungeon, house, load/unload from automobile, alley type of locale, etc.) If you want to have something long, then why not a spear/javelin/etc.?
If you are not carrying a pole, what are the chances one is just lying around? How often do you see ~10' of anything?
If you have a wand (pointy or not) why are you carrying it? Would it be a magical item that can cast a spell or something? If your wand can cast a spell, isn't that way more valuable then using it as a giant pin?
Okay first off I want to state that I know about the Improvised Weapons rule to be used for anything that doesn't have a attack stat already but I see rods and poles should have some type of attack of Bludgeoning naturally. The pole is 10ft why wouldn't the monk hit something with it?? As for wands if its pointed on one end it can technically Pierce something or if its rounded it would be Bludgeoning instead and there could be a repercussion for using a wand in this way but its just incase of someone or something getting to close and don't have time to pull a like a dagger. Like how I see it is these items could be weapons naturally in any situation, can anyone give me any reason they aren't this way in the RAW (Rules As Written)?
Some magical Rods, I'm not sure about Wands, are sufficiently sturdy to be used as a normal weapon. These are specified in their entry and are typically magic weapons to boot. Do note that the Improvised Weapon rules also include the clause "Weapon Equivalents. If an improvised weapon resembles a Simple or Martial weapon, the DM may say it functions as that weapon and uses that weapon’s rules." Therefore a DM could treat a rod as a mace or club. If it were me, I would also consider breaking the item on a natural 1 when used as an improvised weapon.
10' long. Why would a character carry that anywhere on an adventure? Have you ever carried 10' of anything by yourself? It is very hard to maneuver when you are inside of anything (forest, dungeon, house, load/unload from automobile, alley type of locale, etc.) If you want to have something long, then why not a spear/javelin/etc.?
If you are not carrying a pole, what are the chances one is just lying around? How often do you see ~10' of anything?
I agree it’s ridiculous when you think about it, but the 10’ pole is a classic piece of gear. In 1e it was one of the main ways to explore a dungeon, tapping it in front of you to set off traps.
To the OP: in addition to the above posters, it’s because for balance reasons, you don’t want one piece of gear to be able to do everything. Characters need to make choices about what items they are using, and deal with the trade-offs. The exception seems to be the staff which can be both a weapon and a spellcasting focus. But the wizard using it is likely to be crappy enough with the staff that they won’t often try to whack someone with it.
Because those things are equipment and not weapons. They are made to be things that are use for utility stuff (or as a Focus) and thus are usually not sturdy enough to be used as a weapon. Try a Quarterstaff instead of a Pole (or a Staff) and a Mace instead of a Rod and, well anything you like, instead of a Wand. If you absolutely need to use one as a weapon then it becomes an improvised weapon.
Okay I see that, I guess its a thing where all weapons are equipment but not all equipment are weapons but the reason why this came to mind is I am playing a Monk in one campaign that has had a Pole of Collapsing and I just unarm attack but I feel like its a item that just sitting in my inventory not getting any use, in another campaign I am playing a warlock and trying to choose a weapon that benefits him well and I think the Rod of the Pact Keeper would be great but I also want something that will work if they get into melee range, unless I just take the feat Spell Sniper to solve my issues
Why should they have their own weapon/attack and damage properties? For the rod and pole, if they're sturdy enough to be used as weapons, you can use the club and staff stats respectively, but I doubt they would be. I don't see a wand being something you could reasonably use as a weapon in any circumstance.
Poles - This is a long length of wood or sometimes metal that is a utility item. If it's light enough that you could wield it as a weapon, it's not going to be strong enough to use as one, and if it's strong enough to use as a weapon, it's not going to be light enough to wield as one. But if you posses a pole that's an exception to this, use the staff stats
Rods - These are magical implements crafted from rare woods, esoteric crystals, or complicated alloys. They're unlikely to be something strong enough to bonk someone over the head with, certainly not more than once. But again, if you are in possession of an unusually resilient rod, use the club stats.
Wands - Again, these are magic implements like rods, but much smaller and more delicate. They're not going to have enough heft for bludgeoning, and they're generally not pointy enough for stabbing. They're tools of the arcane, not something you stick someone with.
Like how I see it is these items could be weapons naturally in any situation, can anyone give me any reason they aren't this way in the RAW (Rules As Written)?
The improvised weapon rules, as the name would suggest, are for when you are improvising a weapon. So RAW yes these items could be used as a weapon in "any situation". However, you're going to be hard pressed to make a compelling argument that a wand would be more effective than a dagger, a rod more so than a club, or a pole more effective than a staff.
Just to make them easier if needed, getting hit with a wood or metal stick would hurt no matter the size but its more of a last ditch thing then a always used item in this manner, besides the pole I see that as something that could be used as a main weapon, I guess my main thing would be to try and keep the character sheet as clean as possible because if you do use another weapons stats for it you would have to add that weapon to your sheet even if you don't actually have the weapon. I am not saying that a tip of a wand would do better than a dagger, certainly not multiple times, but in the situation if you stab anything with a pointy side of any object it would do damage but I also said "there could be a repercussion for using a wand in this way" which means you roll a d20 or a d100 and see if it breaks or not.
10' long. Why would a character carry that anywhere on an adventure? Have you ever carried 10' of anything by yourself? It is very hard to maneuver when you are inside of anything (forest, dungeon, house, load/unload from automobile, alley type of locale, etc.) If you want to have something long, then why not a spear/javelin/etc.?
If you are not carrying a pole, what are the chances one is just lying around? How often do you see ~10' of anything?
If you have a wand (pointy or not) why are you carrying it? Would it be a magical item that can cast a spell or something? If your wand can cast a spell, isn't that way more valuable then using it as a giant pin?
One of my characters thats a monk has a Pole of Collapsing. I figure a pole could be a weapon with the Reach property. I mean look at Glaive, to me a glaive looks like a pole with a blade on it to me but I might be looking at this in a logical way more than a fantasy way. Well I am tall and have carried stuff taller than me but not out on a adventure. You would in fact carry a wand to cast spells but if you were going to cast a range spell you would be at disadvantage if someone is in your face not all spell caster take melee/touch spells. To your last question wouldn't be better to use your wand in like a pin instead of just pulling out a dagger and doing nothing on that turn?
Thank you all for responding, I am getting good feedback and helping me understand where some of my thinking might need to be more open, and please if you have any more to say I would love to hear it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay first off I want to state that I know about the Improvised Weapons rule to be used for anything that doesn't have a attack stat already but I see rods and poles should have some type of attack of Bludgeoning naturally. The pole is 10ft why wouldn't the monk hit something with it?? As for wands if its pointed on one end it can technically Pierce something or if its rounded it would be Bludgeoning instead and there could be a repercussion for using a wand in this way but its just incase of someone or something getting to close and don't have time to pull a like a dagger. Like how I see it is these items could be weapons naturally in any situation, can anyone give me any reason they aren't this way in the RAW (Rules As Written)?
Because those things are equipment and not weapons. They are made to be things that are use for utility stuff (or as a Focus) and thus are usually not sturdy enough to be used as a weapon. Try a Quarterstaff instead of a Pole (or a Staff) and a Mace instead of a Rod and, well anything you like, instead of a Wand. If you absolutely need to use one as a weapon then it becomes an improvised weapon.
Why should they have their own weapon/attack and damage properties? For the rod and pole, if they're sturdy enough to be used as weapons, you can use the club and staff stats respectively, but I doubt they would be. I don't see a wand being something you could reasonably use as a weapon in any circumstance.
Poles - This is a long length of wood or sometimes metal that is a utility item. If it's light enough that you could wield it as a weapon, it's not going to be strong enough to use as one, and if it's strong enough to use as a weapon, it's not going to be light enough to wield as one. But if you posses a pole that's an exception to this, use the staff stats
Rods - These are magical implements crafted from rare woods, esoteric crystals, or complicated alloys. They're unlikely to be something strong enough to bonk someone over the head with, certainly not more than once. But again, if you are in possession of an unusually resilient rod, use the club stats.
Wands - Again, these are magic implements like rods, but much smaller and more delicate. They're not going to have enough heft for bludgeoning, and they're generally not pointy enough for stabbing. They're tools of the arcane, not something you stick someone with.
The improvised weapon rules, as the name would suggest, are for when you are improvising a weapon. So RAW yes these items could be used as a weapon in "any situation". However, you're going to be hard pressed to make a compelling argument that a wand would be more effective than a dagger, a rod more so than a club, or a pole more effective than a staff.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
To pile on, look at a pole.
10' long. Why would a character carry that anywhere on an adventure? Have you ever carried 10' of anything by yourself? It is very hard to maneuver when you are inside of anything (forest, dungeon, house, load/unload from automobile, alley type of locale, etc.) If you want to have something long, then why not a spear/javelin/etc.?
If you are not carrying a pole, what are the chances one is just lying around? How often do you see ~10' of anything?
If you have a wand (pointy or not) why are you carrying it? Would it be a magical item that can cast a spell or something? If your wand can cast a spell, isn't that way more valuable then using it as a giant pin?
Some magical Rods, I'm not sure about Wands, are sufficiently sturdy to be used as a normal weapon. These are specified in their entry and are typically magic weapons to boot. Do note that the Improvised Weapon rules also include the clause "Weapon Equivalents. If an improvised weapon resembles a Simple or Martial weapon, the DM may say it functions as that weapon and uses that weapon’s rules." Therefore a DM could treat a rod as a mace or club. If it were me, I would also consider breaking the item on a natural 1 when used as an improvised weapon.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I agree it’s ridiculous when you think about it, but the 10’ pole is a classic piece of gear. In 1e it was one of the main ways to explore a dungeon, tapping it in front of you to set off traps.
To the OP: in addition to the above posters, it’s because for balance reasons, you don’t want one piece of gear to be able to do everything. Characters need to make choices about what items they are using, and deal with the trade-offs. The exception seems to be the staff which can be both a weapon and a spellcasting focus. But the wizard using it is likely to be crappy enough with the staff that they won’t often try to whack someone with it.
Okay I see that, I guess its a thing where all weapons are equipment but not all equipment are weapons but the reason why this came to mind is I am playing a Monk in one campaign that has had a Pole of Collapsing and I just unarm attack but I feel like its a item that just sitting in my inventory not getting any use, in another campaign I am playing a warlock and trying to choose a weapon that benefits him well and I think the Rod of the Pact Keeper would be great but I also want something that will work if they get into melee range, unless I just take the feat Spell Sniper to solve my issues
Just to make them easier if needed, getting hit with a wood or metal stick would hurt no matter the size but its more of a last ditch thing then a always used item in this manner, besides the pole I see that as something that could be used as a main weapon, I guess my main thing would be to try and keep the character sheet as clean as possible because if you do use another weapons stats for it you would have to add that weapon to your sheet even if you don't actually have the weapon. I am not saying that a tip of a wand would do better than a dagger, certainly not multiple times, but in the situation if you stab anything with a pointy side of any object it would do damage but I also said "there could be a repercussion for using a wand in this way" which means you roll a d20 or a d100 and see if it breaks or not.
One of my characters thats a monk has a Pole of Collapsing. I figure a pole could be a weapon with the Reach property. I mean look at Glaive, to me a glaive looks like a pole with a blade on it to me but I might be looking at this in a logical way more than a fantasy way. Well I am tall and have carried stuff taller than me but not out on a adventure. You would in fact carry a wand to cast spells but if you were going to cast a range spell you would be at disadvantage if someone is in your face not all spell caster take melee/touch spells. To your last question wouldn't be better to use your wand in like a pin instead of just pulling out a dagger and doing nothing on that turn?
Thank you all for responding, I am getting good feedback and helping me understand where some of my thinking might need to be more open, and please if you have any more to say I would love to hear it